The paperwork submitted by a group hoping to recall Mendocino County District Attorney David Eyster was rejected by the county Elections Office this week.
Katrina Bartolomie, who serves as the Mendocino County Registrar of Voters, as well as its Assessor, Clerk and Recorder, confirmed Friday morning that “when the proponents published their Notice of Intent to Recall, there were several errors with names and addresses from what was served to our office and to Mr. Eyster.”
Bartolomie explained further that the proponents then “called and requested a meeting for (Thursday) and we went over the errors that we found. They said they had plans to start the process over.”
The effort to recall Eyster was launched by Ukiah resident Helen Sizemore, who said she was unsatisfied with his performance, and unhappy that his current term in office was extended by recent state legislation aligning the terms of District Attorneys with presidential elections.
“I would not be doing this if his term was still expiring in 2026,” she said, noting that she was opposed to “Eyster’s term being longer that what voters elected him to,” noting that it was extended to 2028. Sizemore did not respond to a request for comment Friday on her plans to resubmit the recall paperwork.
Eyster did not respond to a previous request for comment on the recall effort.
(ukiahdailyjournal.com)
PAUL MODIC: The Eyster recall was rejected by the registrar of voters because the advocates said in their filing papers that he was the DA of Ukiah instead of DA of Mendocino, a lot of unimportant and mistaken periods and commas, and the Notice of Intent which was filed wasn’t identical to the one served to Eyster? Seems pretty minor but jeez, get it together organizers, are you in it to win it or what? (It will be hard enough even getting all the signatures…)
It was not rejected because it said he was the DA of Ukiah, we do not critique what the reasons for recall are. We pointed out all the differences between what was filed with us and served to Mr. Eyster and what was published. It was rejected because names were incorrect and addresses were incorrect. The NOI to Recall needs to be an exact copy, not a copy that has errors. From what I understand the proponents are trying again.